Okja could, perhaps by accident, become one of, if not the most important media catalysts for veganism. While this in itself is invaluable, I’d argue even more strongly that it’s vital we don’t allow Okja to become known as nothing but “activist propaganda”.
Part of the magic of Okja is the fact that it almost catches us unaware. We expect to feel, but we don’t expect to feel so much. We expect to like Okja, and Mija – his carer – but perhaps we don’t expect to love them.
It pulls you in quietly… You meet Okja, and Mija, and you marvel at their friendship, the beauty of their quiet but mutual affection. Because the start of the movie is so beautifully done, with gentle and fun scenes, we’re introduced to their friendship and immediately, we recognise the strength of their bond. Not only do we recognise it, but we respect it.
So when we’re suddenly faced with the reality of a young girl being betrayed by everyone except Okja – her family, the corporation – we feel it sharply. Here we have Mija, someone who every single one of us who is an animal lover can relate to, with the sudden and inconsolable reality of forced separation.
Not only that, but we meet the activists, who are slightly tongue-in-cheek, but passionate (sometimes, a little too passionate). They only have two interests – to protect Okja and others like her, and to cause as little harm as possible. Their activism is quiet and protective, using traps and tricks to slow people down rather than hurt them. Their fight, and their love, encompasses everyone, even those who are determined to battle their cause.
This is, of course, why Okja has the potential to move so many people. It guides us to care. It lets us love Okja, and Mija, and then it shows us (in sometimes graphic and disturbing detail) what society – a society we are a part of – does to beings like our new pal Okja.
At one point, despite all the horror and problems, a main character announces:
“If it’s cheap, they’ll eat it.”
It’s a dark, but real observation. The entire meat industry proves that, along with particular highlights like “barn raised” eggs. At this point, if you don’t know what that really means for the hens, you’re just not paying attention. But how many people are still willing to save that dollar here and there, willfully ignorant to the amount of suffering caused by their discount?
The film gets a lot right about the fate of animals that are destined to become ‘food’:
During his research for Okja, Bong visited several abattoirs and meat-packing facilities.
I have read criticism that the film pushes a vegan agenda on the audience. To me, that allegation is addressed quite simply.
Firstly, the argument is borne of guilt. The ‘agenda’ may make a viewer feel badly because they can’t honestly agree with what happens in the film – and yet, perhaps they are a willing consumer of corporations with similar (although slightly exaggerated) ideals.
Secondly, if the film makes a viewer feel badly, then should they not strive to not be a willing contributor?
Okja paints society’s actions in a savage, but fairly honest, light. If we can share in the sadness of Mija’s loss of Okja, and recognise a CGI animal in an affectionate light, what does it say of us as individuals if we continue to contribute to allowing real animals to suffer such a horrible fate?
Okja is, if you’ll excuse the pun, incredible food for thought. It’s one movie that, while I consider it a masterpiece, I’m not sure I will ever watch again. It hit too close to home, too close to the dark part of my conscience that knows what happens, and what I once paid to contribute to.
Food journalist and novice farmer Chloe Scott-Moncrieff posted an article yesterday about the experience and ethics of raising her own pigs, destined to become food in November.
I had to take several deep breaths reading the article, because while overall the article is a potential force for something positive, I’m at the point where it made my stomach turn. Reading back through it again to select quotes didn’t really help much, but the point is, it’s a powerful piece. It’s writing coming from a carnist who is beginning to think the way we think. Rather than a piece written as “us vs. them”.
I’m conditioned to accept meat-eating is natural and that animals are categorised into edible, inedible, pets and predators, rather than equals.
I can’t actually really remember how this feels, but I know with absolute certainty that it’s exactly how I felt. I claimed to “love animals”, sure, but I look back now and shake my head with a sort of mix of shame and despair. How could I have thought I “loved” animals when I saw most of them as a product?
Some way, somehow in my mind, some animals were, despite being cute and something I supposedly admired, still a product.
it’s a realisation of how I unblinkingly stuff comestibles into my gob. And it makes my mission to eat more ethically more pertinent.
This I can really relate to. Even as a vegan, I’m regularly guilty of this. Despite the fact I sometimes wonder when food became just ‘something to do’, a boredom reliever, a cravings satisfier, and not a necessity for survival… At some point, many of us make the often every day decision to eat based on taste and preference, not nutrition or needs. As a vegan, my pause before eating can be summed up simply as: “Is this product vegan?”. Usually, nutrition and ‘needs’ don’t enter the equation. Unblinkingly, I too stuff food mindlessly into my gob.
This next part is where the article loses me a bit:
The question is, how do I feel about eating an animal I’ve raised, cherished and enjoyed? At the moment, I feel a little tormented.
Even before going vegan, I can’t picture myself even considering eating something I had cherished or raised, regardless of the type of animal. This level of disconnect isn’t something I could understand, even a year ago when I too was a carnist.
Nevertheless, I feel uneasy – guilty even – when I learn that well-cared-for pigs naturally live 15-20 years: I’ve been advised these ladies should be slaughtered at around six to nine months old. Wouldn’t they want to live longer? Who doesn’t?
This has become my single-sentence mantra: Just like me, they want to live. For me, this line of thinking is ALL I need to stay on the vegan track. I don’t falter or question it, I just do it. I don’t begrudge it, either. I feel so content and at peace to live a vegan life. It has become a huge part of who I am.
While I watch these gregarious hogs racing to greet me, kissing and nibbling each other, or sleeping (they sleep a lot!) in their muddy oasis, I’m slowly coming to a conclusion. Ethical carnism can’t exist.
I can’t see there is much justification for eating meat in this day and age, in this country.
These are the thoughts that lead to a more peaceful existence. These are the stepping stones to veganism, as seen through a current carnist’s eyes.
Before I even start my own thoughts, I’m going to link and also copy the entirety of the e-mail communication between mainstream media here and the company Mt Barker Free Range Farms. Partly because of the revelations that their comments make, and partly because I have some concerns about the removal of their statements to the general public. The RSPCA is also implicated here, and I have some worries that this story will fade away without a real resolution.
Here’s the copied text from the link above (colour coding my own, for ease of reading):
Seven News: Seven News plans to air a story in the next few days about conditions at a Free Range Chicken Farm contracted to Mt Barker Free Range Chickens.
An animal rights groups has provided us this footage claimed to have been shot in April 2017.
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: Far from being exclusive to Channel 7, a different edit of this footage has been on Facebook for months. It has been widely disseminated as part of a launch by an activist group that appears to be targeting the RSPCA and there is a reference to 6PR. A review of the group’s website suggests it takes extreme positions against any animal ownership, including farmed animals and pets.
RSPCA audits of this farm were conducted on May 7th with no corrective actions raised this followed an audit on the 2nd March – there were no corrective actions raised from this either. Prior to that audits on 21st November 2016 and 27th September 2016 were also passed without any corrective actions being required.
The video clearly sets out to be misleading and deceptive from the outset implying that the chickens being inside means that they are not free range. It has been filmed at night time after the chickens have been brought indoors for the night and our web site clearly states:
“At night, our birds return to their cosy barns. These are computer monitored to make sure it’s not a smidgeon too hot or too cold.”
Elsewhere on our web site we say:
“…and are sheltered from predation and inclement weather at night.”
Our first rule is to keep the chickens safe inside at night from the numerous foxes about and keep them warm on the cold nights, they range outside during the day.
The video link below filmed by the RSPCA during daylight hours, provides an indicative view of what the farms actually look like. Although it is a different farm, you’ll note the shedding is similar, and the farm itself operates to the same standards. The video shows several indoor producers as well as Mt Barker, for the Mt Barker farms see 1.03-2.30 (approx.) and then again later in the video.
Seven News: At least 8 dead birds appear to have different markings and burns.
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: If eight dead birds found by the activists over 3 nights, it would be a low mortality rate. Anyone who have ever grown chickens whether for eggs or meat will tell you that. Your implication that there are “at least” 8 is prejudicial and is not supported by the evidence you say you have. The activists say they visited the farm over 3 nights to find this number and it seems must have cut and pasted the footage.
The birds do not have ammonia burns – if they did it would show on their footpads which meet the ground – this is where you look for ammonia burns. The red exposed areas are on chickens that have not fully feathered or which may have lost feathers while free ranging. Again, if you review the RSPCA video above the below link, from about the 2 minute mark onwards, it explains the feathering process. You can see many examples of happy, healthy birds with pink exposed skin which is being misleadingly called an “ammonia burn”.
For ammonia to be present in quantities to burn and scar, the litter (floor bedding) would need to be wet. It is obviously dry and friable as required by our standards and the RSPCA. Less than a week after the activists appear to have been at the farm an external RSPCA audit that covers litter quality raised no issues.
Seven News: Chickens seem to be cannibalising rotting chickens.
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: The footage shows one chicken carcass being pecked at by other chickens. Chickens are omnivores they eat insects and peck at each other hence the term ‘pecking order’ it is an instinct. We endeavour to avoid birds pecking each other but, we do not clip their beaks and sometimes animals turn on each other. The activists clearly know about this natural behaviour of chickens and are wearing heavy gloves to protect themselves from being pecked.
Seven News: Several birds are clearly suffering and scarred with burns.
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: That is a bald assertion that is incorrect and we can clearly prove the contrary. The opening shots of the video show happy, chirping birds. We have two documented external, independent, professional audits within weeks of the date of these allegations showing no such suffering and good conditions in the housing.
Seven News: Three-week-old chicks suffering with inflamed ammonia burns, respiratory difficulties and some could not walk or stand.
Seven News: How can these conditions exist given the claims made on your website and by your GM regarding continuous monitoring and high standards of welfare?
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: The chickens in chicken house from the opening shot are clearly happy judging by the movement and the noise – the chickens are chirping and happy. the activists may have staged the pictures of birds but whatever the truth of that they clearly to visit the chicken house over several weeks to secure enough footage for their purposes. It is very difficult to reconcile the footage of dead birds they say they collected over several nights with the general environment in the chicken house.
Seven News: How can rotting chickens be left long enough to be cannibalised by other chickens?
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: Our staff walk the chicken houses and the free-range area twice a day looking for any birds that have died or might be in trouble. Sometimes a death or injury occurs after they have left.
Seven News: What risk does this pose to consumers?
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: None whatsoever – chickens have engaged in this sort of behaviour for eons and it is not a known source of any risks to consumers.
Seven News: Why can birds be seen in pain with burns and respiratory difficulty?
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: You prejudge with your question in an unfair manner. The only bird that might appear in pain due to the apparent heavy breathing has most likely been staged by the activists with a technique known as ionic immobility or is just terrified after being handled by people the chickens do not know.
Seven News: How did your monitoring and oversight fail?
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: Our monitoring and oversight has not failed and you have no evidence to that effect. Apart the professional teams on our farms we have supervision by an external Vet and a former Associate Professor from UWA.
External audits carried out by the RSPCA are independent and rigorous and undertaken by fully trained professionals rather than amateurs from a vegan activist organisation that seems more interested in turning people off meat than making genuine progress in animal welfare. If it were otherwise your informant would have brought their welfare concerns (which date back to April) to our attention before now or at least would have raised the matter with the RSPCA. People who are really concerned about animal welfare don’t stand back and refrain from action because they have some other agenda – their priority is the animal.
Also on the issue of veracity, we urge you to look at the web site and the story regarding the chickens the activists claim to have rescued. The chickens are clearly in good condition and obviously did not need to be ‘rescued’.
Seven News: What action will you take to remedy the conditions at this farm?
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: We have referred the footage to the RSPCA auditing team and shown it to our staff. We will of course reinforce our everyone’s commitment to animal welfare and double check the chicken house to see if there are bird deaths after the doors are closed at night. The claims regarding ammonia burns and respiratory problems are baseless as we have shown but, we are focussed on continuously improving the welfare of our chickens and will increase our vigilance.
Seven News: We would like to include a comment from you on-camera.
Mt Barker Free Range Farms: We don’t propose to comment on camera, judging by the way you have framed your questions you seem to have an agenda yourself and we would not be confident of a fair airing.
The IDA’s website makes it clear that they have an agenda against free range farming and are opposed to the consumption of meat. This link (https://www.idausa.org/campaign/farmed-animal/free-range-myth/) contains misrepresentations and flat out lies about free range farming in general.
The information and answers provided by us are without prejudice to our rights. We are a West Australian family business that pioneered and remain fully committed to the highest standards of ethical animal production and we have a well-known and valuable brand. The allegations by your informant are false and misleading and your questions prejudicial. If you broadcast the content as you propose, knowing that they are false as set out above, with reckless disregard for their truth and objectiveness it that would amount to actionable injurious falsehood. Please take notice that we will institute proceedings to protect our legal rights and recover damages for any loss.
*
There’s so much wrong here it’s hard to know where to begin. Taking it from the top…
Far from being exclusive to Channel 7, a different edit of this footage has been on Facebook for months.
The key point here is, this problematic footage showing less than ideal (to put it mildly) footage has been known about – and ignored – for months, by their own admission.
A review of the group’s website suggests it takes extreme positions against any animal ownership, including farmed animals and pets.
This comment does nothing but try and paint activists in a poor light, rather than address the issue at hand. Avoidance and deflection isn’t going to make the issue go away.
RSPCA audits of this farm were conducted […] with no corrective actions
Anyone who has spent even a few minutes looking into animal welfare and governing bodies in Australia knows, without a doubt, that the RSPCA is, a best, a toothless tiger. Putting the RSPCA itself aside for a moment, how can an independent and completely accurate audit or report be expected from a company working hand-in-hand (and profiting)?
The video clearly sets out to be misleading and deceptive from the outset implying that the chickens being inside means that they are not free range. It has been filmed at night time after the chickens have been brought indoors for the night and our web site clearly states:
“At night, our birds return to their cosy barns. These are computer monitored to make sure it’s not a smidgeon too hot or too cold.”
Actually, the most misleading part here is “cosy barns”. I’m not sure how the company expects to save face and defend actual video footage by trying to label these conditions as a “cosy barn”. Most people, I expect, don’t consider cramped, unwell conditions next to dead bodies as “cosy” – not for any species.
The video link below filmed by the RSPCA during daylight hours, provides an indicative view of what the farms actually look like. Although it is a different farm,
And therefore shouldn’t be being mentioned as “evidence”. What happens on another farm is, in fact, irrelevant. The conversation is about what is happening at this farm.
Our monitoring and oversight has not failed and you have no evidence to that effect.
Here is where they really fell over. At no point during this conversation does Mt Barker admit or acknowledge, even for a moment, that a check of systems and welfare might be in order. If they cared about the chickens, their response would be different. They would express regret over any possible error or neglect, but most importantly, they would be determined to confirm if there is a problem, and work hard (and immediately) to rectify it. Instead their only response is denial and blame shift.
amateurs from a vegan activist organisation that seems more interested in turning people off meat than making genuine progress in animal welfare.
Another example of blame shift. (Also, how can an argument be made that a vegan activist is not interested in animal welfare?)
People who are really concerned about animal welfare don’t stand back and refrain from action because they have some other agenda – their priority is the animal.
This is a real kicker. While attempting to shift blame to activists, they unwittingly criticise their own behavior. Instead of making any attempt whatsoever to prioritise the chickens, Mt Barker’s sole concern is standing back and refraining from action.
Please take notice that we will institute proceedings to protect our legal rights and recover damages for any loss.
In closing, Mt Barker’s final comment is to threaten legal action in the case of lost profit. In case there was any doubt whatsoever, their concern is not at any point animal welfare. It’s about salvaging their arguably ill-gotten reputation and continuing to turn a profit by claiming “free range”.
Consumers should feel lied to, betrayed and stolen from – paying a premium for a product that is based on nothing but lies.
Animal welfare news in Australia for the past few days has been all about the impending live export of horses, ponies and donkeys for slaughter.
The Australia Greens successfully passed a motion to ban the export of these animals. No doubt or question about it, this is a win for the animals.
Of course, my hope is that this shines a bright enough light on the entire trade that the nation stops and pays attention to the other victims of live export.
While petitions are signed and public outrage is at an all time high over some species, millions of are dying on Australia’s death ships. I’m beginning to sound and feel like a broken record, but I can’t stomach the protection of certain species while we turn a blind eye to another. I can’t understand it and I feel obligated to speak up for them – the voiceless, the forgotten by “animal lovers”.
The motion passed, according to news outlets, because:
“while livestock like beef cattle are subject to strict supply chain assurances, no such government conditions exist for equines”
I guess that makes it seem like there is some kind of protection for the animals we’re sending over – cows, sheep, goats – the animals that somehow regularly get forgotten off our lists of cute and worthy of our love and care.
Animals Australia have been working tirelessly to expose live export for the horror it really is, forcing a spotlight on something the industry would prefer us to keep ignoring.
What’s wrong with live export?
Millions of animals have died – and continue to die – at sea
43 investigations have revealed that many animals suffer routine abuse
Most animals sent from Australia have their throats cut while fully conscious
These facts, horrifying enough on their own, don’t begin to touch on the conditions of the ships, nor do they confront the specifics of the torture and slaughter faced by the victims of live export.
If we’re not OK with horses, ponies and donkeys meeting this fate, why are we OK with it for any animal?
Regrettably, we can’t deny this is happening to Australian animals that we should be protecting. Animals Australia have been campaigning against live export since 2003.
Now is the time to give animals a voice – not just the ones that are decided, arbitrarily, to be more worthy – but all animals.
One of the major things I found when I went vegan is how differently I started looking at everything. Mostly critically, and it can be hard to swallow what you were once a part of.
One of the most puzzling things to me now is the concept of “dolphin-safe tuna”. It gets worse when you scratch at the surface, but even the label itself is completely … well, ridiculous.
Consumers (and I was, once, a part of this group) are willingly paying to protect one species while they eat another. From a vegan perspective, this is speciesism at its finest. For arbitrary reasons, we collectively decided that dolphins are worth more – worth saving – while tuna are not given a second thought.
One species is saved – with us even paying a premium – while another is farmed and killed for unnecessary consumption. And not only are we okay with this, but we collectively pat ourselves on the back for doing a good deed.
Scratching at the surface, though, “dolphin-friendly” labeling has other concerns. From a 2013 report from The Conversation:
None of the single-issue dolphin-safe eco-labelling schemes comprehensively evaluated the status of tuna or other associated and dependent stocks in their certification processes. The ecosystem approach under the “Dolphin Safe” schemes was applied only in terms of how fishing affected dolphin populations.
It would seem, then, that the label that we feel so good about buying protects only one species, while giving companies the ability to ignore any and all other species and populations. A fishery that strives to reach other eco targets might not receive any recognition or labeling for doing so, but a fishery that ignores everything except the “dolphin friendly” criteria can be seen in the same positive light.
Further, some tuna fisheries can have negative impacts on other species – including seabirds and turtles:
In a literature review, we found tuna fisheries had unsustainable impacts on some species of tuna, shark, seabirds and turtles. But fishing impacts on dolphins were only a significant issue for a limited number of fisheries in the eastern Pacific. No credible threat to dolphin populations had ever been identified in the world’s largest tuna fishery – the Western and Central Pacific Ocean – nor raised in the relevant scientific and management organisations.
In 2006, the Independent found that 450,000 blue sharks were unfortunate “by catches” in tuna nets in 10 years. More alarmingly, blue fin tuna – which is highly sought after commercially around the world – are particularly vulnerable to over fishing. Taking at least 10 years to mature sexually, making their reproduction slow and badly impacted by commercial fishing – they are being fished faster than they can reproduce.
Blue fin tuna – why should I care?
Blue fin tuna are actually pretty fascinating. They can grow to just under 250kg and just shy of 200cm long. They can live up to 40 years.
Amazingly, they’re also warm-blooded, which is extremely rare in fish.
They can also migrate an impressive distance – from the Newfoundland area of Canada, all the way to the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico!
From an environmental perspective, blue fin tuna are at the top of their marine food chain. Their extinction, due to their place on the chain, could lead to a massive disruption in balance, and the species they feed on in the wild would no longer be regulated.
There are a lot of reasons to not dismiss tuna and only care about dolphins, but it can be summarised quite simply as the famous vegan argument: Why love one and eat the other?
The RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is well known all around Australia:
RSPCA Australia defines its purpose as being the leading authority in animal care and protection, and to prevent cruelty to animals by actively promoting their care and protection.
They aired TV commercials proudly claiming RSPCA For all creatures great and small, with a cute array of animals scurrying across the screen. When I was a kid, I’d get together cans of dog food and donate it to them, wanting to help. Most of us grew up supporting the RSPCA, and with a rosy view of the organisation.
In fact, up until a few years ago, I remained a supporter of the RSPCA. They looked after animals, right? They protected all animals, they saved lives.
Unfortunately, with a closer look at the RSPCA, things aren’t quite so rosy. From a vegan perspective, the issues are many:
RSPCA “approved farming schemes”
BBQ fundraising which sells animal meat and products… in order to raise funds to help other animals
Their kill rates and rescue/re-home rates have been comparatively lower than smaller, less funded, less well-resourced rescues
The above points are a snapshot only, but what animal rights organisation can approve the mass slaughter of animals? More, what animal rights organisation can, with a straight face, sell animal products to raise funds to help animals?
Their rescue rates have been abysmally low – in 2012, the Newcastle Herald reported that RSPCA NSW had a dismal overall kill rate exceeding 50%. In part, this was due to the temperament test used (the details of which have not been released to the public). This test was responsible for over 60% of euthanasia cases:
One of the people who claims to have helped devise the test also states it is used incorrectly – that it was intended to be used as a guide to assess the rehabilitation requirements of the dog – not justify euthanising it.
A study by Monash University found that the temperament testing may not be being applied correctly or properly, casting further doubt on its usefulness, as a quarter of people using it to assess dogs had not been trained to, and more than half believed they were not given enough time to assess the dogs.
Regardless of where you personally stand on support of the RSPCA or veganism, it’s hard to argue it’s not without its problems.
Recently, an article from Saving Pets called ‘The RSPCA is in an existential crisis‘. I found myself nodding earnestly while reading it, agreeing with the points they raised. Further thinking, though, and I concede the issue is much more complicated than can be rushed through. The article is still powerful, though, and I want to address the points it raises.
“The “No Kill” is plainly and simply a marketing concept that has reaped millions of dollars for those shelters advocating this policy, to the detriment of animals and other shelters struggling to do the right thing by all animals not just a select few.”
“A “No Kill” Shelter has a very selective “selection process” on what animals it will accept through its doors and it will only take those animals it knows that it can re-home without difficulty. Thousands of other animals are turned away and referred to pounds or other animal welfare shelters that will take the sick, injured and stray dogs and cats.”
“A “less kill” policy is the reality. The “No Kill Shelter” is purely and simply, a myth.”
Ignoring the specific content of his message for a moment: where are the references? Where did he gather this information from? There is not a single source, link, or any kind of data to back up any of his claims. Surely, damning claims like this against rescue groups should have some kind of source? Kill rates aside, a source for the claim of “[reaped] millions of dollars for shelters” is essential.
Aside from a lack of sources, his comments are otherwise problematic. Maybe releasing details of their temperament policy would be a step in the right direction. Transparency about why decisions are made to euthanize, instead of keeping the details hidden in the shadows.
In fact, it’s not an uncommon sight to see smaller shelters trying to re-home pets with extra requirements. Reactive, can’t be around kids/other pets, needs training, etc. Townend’s comments suggest the only pets you’d see needing re-homing would be those who love everyone and are perfectly trained, which is obviously not the case.
Simply put – if Townend’s claims are true (any of them), then where are his sources? Where is the data supporting his claim? If in fact that information exists, why isn’t it being readily shared? Surely that is something the general public would – and should – want to know about?
Putting that aside for now, Saving Pets’ article goes on to talk about the bizarre (and actually pretty twisted) method the RSPCA uses for their fundraising. That is, quite literally selling animal food products to raise money for – wait for it – all animals great and small.
All animals great and small, except the ones that we just ate? Why do they not matter to the RSPCA? We’re meant to ‘feel good’ about buying RSPCA approved meats, which accounts to 800,000,000 animals being slaughtered under the RSPCA’s approval.
From a vegan perspective, that feels so messed up it’s hard to wrap your head around. But even from a non-vegan or vegetarian perspective, isn’t that a little… Odd?
“The RSPCA is the only animal protection organisation that has legal powers to prosecute animal cruelty, yet it receives money from the very industries it is supposed to police – a clear conflict of interest.” – Animal Liberation Victoria
However, the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme is where things get a little muddy for me. As a vegan, I’m passionately against it. As someone with a pragmatic approach, the broader subject gives me pause.
Now, to be clear, I have many problems with the scheme in its current form. My pause is because we do need something to attempt to keep the animal agricultural industry in check. However, that scheme should not be hand-in-hand with both animal welfare and the very agencies that profit from the death of animals, as it is now.
An agency can’t protect both the true welfare of animals and the very industry that profits from the mass production and efficiency of their slaughter.
That solution isn’t without its own set of problems. Why would farmers, and the agricultural industry at large, be interested in cooperating with an agency that will, in their view, slow up processing, delay profits, and drive costs up?
What is the answer, then? The RSPCA is certainly missing the mark on several fronts, but any agency that went harder after the industry would soon lose their cooperation.
Which leaves me with many questions. Namely, can we ever expect an agency in Australia that truly looks after the animals and has the cooperation of our government? And if not, is the likes of the RSPCA the best we can hope for?
Each Friday I’ll be writing a “fast Friday” guide, primarily aimed at people transitioning or curious about transitioning.
When you go vegan, you might find yourself left with a bunch of stuff you already had – leather, wool, not to mention leftover food.
With your leather and wool products, there are two main options. These should cover people who both don’t want to waste the item and people who don’t want to use it anymore.
Clothes, Shoes, Bags, Etc
1. Donate, Gift, Recycle
If you’re of the mindset you can’t stand to wear your leather, wool or other items any longer, this is probably the best choice all around. Donate it to a shelter, op-shop, or gift it to a friend or relative. This has a small but positive domino effect – the item isn’t wasted and the person who receives it might be able to use it in place of buying a new leather item.
2. Use it Until it Falls Apart
This is a good option for anyone who can comfortably continue wearing or using the item. The harm from producing the product is already done, so wasting it at this point is not worth considering.
Most importantly – work out what is right for you and what helps you to transition the easiest. If you don’t want to wear the item anymore, donating, gifting or even selling it is fine. And so is using it until it falls apart!
Food
Food can be a more delicate subject. Many vegans, even when newly transitioned, find it hard to even think about consume animal or dairy products. In this case, your options remain the same as above, but with one important difference.
Some with a more strict approach to veganism might suggest that continuing to consume animal products after going (or starting to go) vegan is wrong. While it’s a personal decision we must all make, I think it’s wrong to shame people for deciding to consume the food they already have. For a start, not all of us can afford to simply throw food out or donate it and start again.
And secondly, if we expect people to empty their fridges, freezers and pantries of all animal products before going vegan, many people would never be able to make the switch.
With food, find what feels right for you (and what you can afford to do). In my case, I made a decision to go vegan overnight. While I didn’t eat any more meat whatsoever, I had other members in my household who would (and did) eat it. I did, however, finish off a few items such as sauces that had milk product, etc. Once each item was finished, I replaced it with a vegan option.
There’s no shame in finishing products that already exist, and it’s a step in many people’s transition to veganism. And that’s OK.
